Supreme Court rules states can limit FOIA requests to their own citizens

Alito declares "noncitizens have no comparable need" for public accountability.

On Monday, the Supreme Court ruled (PDF) that states can limit their Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests to only citizens of that state.

The unanimous decision is a significant setback to journalists and researchers who use the tool to gather information from public agencies. Ars and dozens of media organizations—including the Associated Press, Bloomberg News, The New Yorker, The New York Times, National Public Radio, The Washington Post, etc.—filed an amicus brief (PDF) in favor of the two men who challenged the restriction.

The case’s first petitioner is a man who used to live in Virginia, Mark J. McBurney, whose ex-wife is a Virginia citizen. After the woman did not fulfill her child support obligations, McBurney asked a state public agency to file a petition for child support on his behalf—the Division of Child Support Enforcement took nine months to comply. In order to ascertain the delay, McBurney filed a FOIA request, seeking “all e-mails, notes, files, memos, reports, letters, policies, [and] opinions” regarding his family’s case. His request was denied on the grounds that he was no longer a citizen of the state. The case’s second petitioner, Roger Hulbert, lives in California. He was hired by a land and title company to obtain real estate tax records in Virginia. He filed a FOIA request and was denied on similar grounds.

In the unanimous opinion, Justice Samuel Alito wrote:

The Virginia FOIA’s citizen/noncitizen distinction has a non-protectionist aim. Virginia’s FOIA exists to provide a mechanism for Virginia citizens to obtain an accounting from their public officials; noncitizens have no comparable need. Moreover, the distinction between citizens and noncitizens recognizes that citizens alone foot the bill for the fixed costs underlying recordkeeping in the Commonwealth. Any effect the Act has of preventing citizens of other States from making a profit by trading on information contained in state records is incidental.

This ruling will almost certainly make it more difficult for journalists covering the entire country to file requests under state-level FOIAs, or as they are sometimes known, Requests for Information (RFI). For example, if Ohio had enacted such a restriction last year, it may have been more difficult for Ars to obtain license plate reader-related documents from the Ohio State Police, as we do not have any staffers in the Buckeye State.

Several other states, including Alabama, Arkansas, Delaware, Montana, New Hampshire, New Jersey, and Tennessee, impose similar geographic restrictions.

That is terrible. So an out of state landlord or business owner (who is subject to income tax and RE tax just like any other owner) is somehow not supporting the state and does not deserve the same rights as someone who has state residency?

Its seems that it's time for journalistic organizations, such as Ars Technica, to create a state-level proxy in each state of the union. The state-level proxy could have rotating members as needed and, as corporations are now considered "citizens", the state in question would need to comply.

if a crime has been committed, i would have thought that any and all information was relevant and had to be released. is this idiot judge gonna rule the same over other crimes committed in other states when info is requested that appertains to the crime? seems a ridiculous ruling that could easily come back and seriously bite some arses!

Wait...so Virginia doesn't have to turn over information to a guy who has an ongoing child support case in the state of Virginia? In what world does that make sense?

No.. it means Virginia does not have to turn over any extra information other than their official response regarding the child support case. The individual filed the FOIA request as a fishing expedition to determine the delay in the official response.

Wait...so Virginia doesn't have to turn over information to a guy who has an ongoing child support case in the state of Virginia? In what world does that make sense?

No.. it means Virginia does not have to turn over any extra information other than their official response regarding the child support case. The individual filed the FOIA request as a fishing expedition to determine the delay in the official response.

Which is a perfectly reasonable request under the intent FOIA -- to verify what the government says.

So, then it is NOT a Freedom of Information Act then? Hypocrisy from the Feds? Who would have thought?

this is NOT the Federal FOIA laws. This is the limit of FOIA laws for the STATE OF VIRGINIA.

America is one nation. Why would it matter who asks for the info or from what state they are from? It makes no sense.

America is one nation, but composed of 50 different states. Each state is a different government, with different laws, and different citizens. It is *not* one solitary blob. The state of Arkansas can't make laws that apply to citizens of California living in California. The state of Arkansas, likewise, isn't accountable to citizens of California. Different states, different governments, different citizens, different laws.

What the hell is the point of FOIA if they can cripple it like that? We live in an interconnected world. This is utter nonsense.

Reinforces the idea of State's Rights. Not necessarily a bad thing in light of an overreaching Federal government that has us embroiled in non-stop wars and other national policies designed to weaken the Constitution.

What the hell is the point of FOIA if they can cripple it like that? We live in an interconnected world. This is utter nonsense.

Reinforces the idea of State's Rights. Not necessarily a bad thing in light of an overreaching Federal government that has us embroiled in non-stop wars and other national policies designed to weaken the Constitution.

state's rights is the stupidest thing ever, and a primary cause for dysfunction in the US government.

Really? There are plenty of things that make me wonder about that statement...

It does cause some problems, but it also avoids plenty of them as well.

I love that the Cato Institute describes Alito as a "jurist with a libertarian streak." After all, there is nothing more libertarian than empowering the government to deceive its citizens.

hypocrite

The article was examples of why he might not be as bad as Scalia on religious freedom. What the is the relevance? I mean, one of Cato's big pushes is for government transparency - machine readable org charts and expense publications, FOIAs, etc..

What the hell is the point of FOIA if they can cripple it like that? We live in an interconnected world. This is utter nonsense.

Reinforces the idea of State's Rights. Not necessarily a bad thing in light of an overreaching Federal government that has us embroiled in non-stop wars and other national policies designed to weaken the Constitution.

state's rights is the stupidest thing ever, and a primary cause for dysfunction in the US government.

Really? There are plenty of things that make me wonder about that statement...

It does cause some problems, but it also avoids plenty of them as well.

You're absolutely right. Damn that awful Fed for striking down racial segregation laws! Of course, you also have things like mj legalization in some states, but it'd be better for that to be enacted country wide.

I can think of serious problems with the Federal government, but empowering the States does nothing to fix that.

Superman Pants up there mentions the wars. So state's rights does what, exactly, to mitigate unnecessary wars? Because Congress made up of representatives from the states overwhelmingly supported the wars.

I could understand if the person doesn't have a standing with the agency, such as a journalist just trying to obtain further information for an article. However, when the person does have a reasonable request for relevant information, such as in an ongoing civil or criminal court case, a state should have to relinquish information that is pertinent to the case, especially if it needs to be disclosed anyways.

That is terrible. So an out of state landlord or business owner (who is subject to income tax and RE tax just like any other owner) is somehow not supporting the state and does not deserve the same rights as someone who has state residency?

Even further, you mean LEGAL residency. It's perfectly legal to live in Virginia and not be a legal resident; it's actually quite common, in fact, and two of my neighbors could have chosen to do so (but decided not to). My wife's ex-Husband, born and raised in Virginia, and who has lived in Virginia for 14 of the last 22 years (before that he had lived in Maryland and North Carolina for 8; the entire remainder of his 50 years he's lived in Virginia) was only just this past January forced to become a legal resident again... because he had been in the Coast Guard, and was briefly stationed in Wisconsin back in 2002-2004. Because of differences in taxes, when he was posted back to what he himself had always considered "Home" (the same city he and my wife divorced in back in 1997, and where my stepdaughter was born in 1991) he chose not to become a Virginian, so he could save on his taxes.

So the state would have had no obligation to fulfill an RFI for him, either, until January (when he retired).

Its seems that it's time for journalistic organizations, such as Ars Technica, to create a state-level proxy in each state of the union. The state-level proxy could have rotating members as needed and, as corporations are now considered "citizens", the state in question would need to comply.

More likely, they would build reciprocity agreements with organizations that have proxies in some areas. Ars has reach to a number of states, but not all. Simple to get an agreement to do an RFI for a state that you have someone in for a different organization and they do them for you in states that they have someone in.

So, then it is NOT a Freedom of Information Act then? Hypocrisy from the Feds? Who would have thought?

this is NOT the Federal FOIA laws. This is the limit of FOIA laws for the STATE OF VIRGINIA.

Brotip: Virginia is not a state. It is a commonwealth along with Kentucky, Massachusetts, and Pennsylvania.

These political entities can call themselves whatever they want, but the last time I checked, they were not collectively referred as the the United States and 4 Commonwealths. Nor does the Constitution refer to them as 'commonwealths' either.

What the hell is the point of FOIA if they can cripple it like that? We live in an interconnected world. This is utter nonsense.

Reinforces the idea of State's Rights. Not necessarily a bad thing in light of an overreaching Federal government that has us embroiled in non-stop wars and other national policies designed to weaken the Constitution.

Lincoln crushed states rights under his boot. The South won't rise again.

If this is true, then I submit that the Commonwealth of Virginia should have no recourse to secure levies, fines, fees,or child support payments from the plaintiff, since he is clearly not a citizen of said Commonwealth. Virginia shouldn't be able to have it both ways.

If this is true, then I submit that the Commonwealth of Virginia should have no recourse to secure levies, fines, fees,or child support payments from the plaintiff, since he is clearly not a citizen of said Commonwealth. Virginia shouldn't be able to have it both ways.

That premise may work except that States have reciprocity laws for child support. They apparently don't for FOIA laws.

Wait...so Virginia doesn't have to turn over information to a guy who has an ongoing child support case in the state of Virginia? In what world does that make sense?

No.. it means Virginia does not have to turn over any extra information other than their official response regarding the child support case. The individual filed the FOIA request as a fishing expedition to determine the delay in the official response.

Which is a perfectly reasonable request under the intent FOIA -- to verify what the government says.

The official response which probably has an official signatory is already verified. I think you meant to infer that the FOIA could be used to acquire extra information to possible dispute the official determination. The reasonableness of that effort is likely too far down the rabbit hole and outside the scope of this discussion.

So, we need to demand that the laws change at the Federal level so that these states DO have to comply with FOIA requests from out of state. What is the likelihood that it will require a Constitutional amendment, though?

It disturbs me that the Supreme Court decision on this was unanimous against though. If anything, it should have been unanimous the other way: that NO government agency can deny public records from ANY US citizen for ANY reason, since that is the entire point behind them being made PUBLIC records.

Come on people, RTFA instead of knee-jerking to the headline, this is a different FOIA than the Federal one, and it's written differently and applies to different things. This isn't the end of the world, and it's still better that they have a FOIA law at all than none.

So, we need to demand that the laws change at the Federal level so that these states DO have to comply with FOIA requests from out of state. What is the likelihood that it will require a Constitutional amendment, though?

It disturbs me that the Supreme Court decision on this was unanimous against though. If anything, it should have been unanimous the other way: that NO government agency can deny public records from ANY US citizen for ANY reason, since that is the entire point behind them being made PUBLIC records.

The reason came down to "who pays for this," apparently. Those who live out of state don't pay anything for the process, so they're excluded. If the full cost of the FOIA was charged to anyone requesting, it might not have been upheld.

I don't see why they can't just force out-of-staters to pay full cost while in-staters get a break, I mean, isn't that how public universities have always worked?

Or, on the flip side, it means if a person is suspected of a crime in a state they don't reside in, their native state isn't compelled to release information that may be vital to the case.

It may also mean that general research is negatively affected. Scientists may have very valid reasons for using FOIA to obtain details in order to perform large studies, studies that will become inaccurate and less useful if states become a pain in the Ars about this.